Jonathan Benczkowski

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for building length and side yard setbacks to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a partial setback of the proposed north side wall.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act, finding it consistent with provincial policy and compatible with the neighbourhood's physical character.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a west side yard setback and a rear deck setback for a new single-family dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City of Toronto reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

At the settlement hearing, the appellant's land use planner provided uncontested expert evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal approved the variances, finding they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor, and were desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create a new residential lot and construct additions to an existing dwelling and detached garage on a property located within a heritage conservation district.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal satisfies the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and that the variances meet the four tests, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the official plan and zoning by-law.

The appellants appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent (instead of 33 percent) to facilitate an addition to an existing dwelling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, relying on uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and associated minor variances to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot while retaining an existing dwelling with potential heritage value.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the appeal proceeded unopposed.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.